It is the general rule that if one is jointly liable for the payment of a debt with the principal, the contract is not within the statute of frauds. Holding that if the promise is joint, that the promise is original as to both promissors.18 But it is oftentimes a question of fact as to whether the promise was, or was not, a joint promise. Where several parties sign a joint note as makers, and it is known to the creditor that some of them or one of them is a surety, the surety showing this fact, may either in a court of law, or in a court of equity, claim the rights and privileges of the surety.19 The true contract in such a case may be shown. It is also the general rule that one of the makers of a joint note under seal may show at law, and by parol, that he is a surety, and these decisions are founded on the same reasons that are given in the case of a note not under seal.20 Joint parties to a note each have all the rights of a surety, so far as the payment of the shares of the others are concerned, and an act by the creditor discharging one, would thereby discharge the other.21

15 Allen vs. O'Donnell, 28 Fed.

Rep., 346. 16 Lowry vs. McKinnie, 68 Pa. St., 294. 17 Colgrave vs. Tallman, 67 N. Y., 95; Smith vs. Sheldon, 35 Mich., 95.

18 Ex parte Lowe, 1 De Gex, 300;

Brown on Statute of Frauds.

19 Kennedy vs. Evans, 31 I11., 258.

20 Rodgers vs. School Trustees, 46 I11., 428.

21 Clark vs. Dane, 128 Ala., 122.